You can’t exactly prove that claim, since no sane person would dispute it. But here’s the first way Sirota tries to prove what everyone knows:

“Joe Biden is almost never called a socialist or a Marxist.”

That’s probably true, though it all depends on what the meaning of “almost never” is. Of course, it's also true that Biden has never been president.

Remember Bill Clinton? He has been!

Using Nexis, we conducted a search using these terms: “Bill Clinton AND socialist OR Marxist.” To keep things fair, we only asked for examples “before January 1, 1998.” (Clinton had been in office five years. Monica hadn't yet broken.)

We can’t give you any examples. Instantly, Nexis produced this message:

“This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 3000 results.”

Sirota is intellectually ill. Someday, he may be better.

In the meantime, we pray his column doesn’t break wide. You see, Obama is up for re-election next month.

We’re hoping the gentlemen wins.

Our endless searches for the truth: To create a perfect parallel, we conducted the same search asking for all results before October 24, 1996, the fourth year of Clinton's first term.

Here's what Nexis instantly said:

“This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 3000 results.”

20 comments:

I've been trying to make this point over at Kos since Obama came into office and every liberal apparently got amnesia about what happened during the Clinton years. They honestly think Obama has gotten it worse than the man who was called *everything* Obama has been called, PLUS a draft dodger, MURDERER, traitor, spy, etc.

Substitute "Obama" in Google for "Clinton," and you get 4.9 million. 3000 hits doesn't sound like that much; obviously, both should have been tested for perspective. My sense of the difference is that Clinton was treated as a ne're do well among us; Obama is among us but not of us.

Sirota argues his point poorly here: A) NO President should really be saying ANYTHING about the Martin case, and B) the case that Obama has come in for special, race based abuse should start with the Republicans saying their # 1 job is to unseat him, and sticking to that unpatriotic program. Sirota can be good, but he's very bad when he's bad.

Actually, though, I think Salon did a LOT more potential damage to Obama with the sicking grovel fest to the bizarre Camille Paglia, the highbrow Mo Dowd. Promoting this dunce seems to have always been one of Salon's main missions, and here I actually think they may have cost Obama a vote or two.

Sirota is playing to his audience. Realistically, why do you think almost the entirety of the online community, except some women (who were quickly shouted into the corner), went crazy for Obama, a guy no one knew anything about, a guy with not even two years in the senate when he began his presidential run, a guy who staked out the most conservative positions among the major candidates in the primary? Because A) They wanted to feel like they were a part of history (first black president); B) They had been programmed to loathe all things Clinton; and C) They were looking forward to years of racial politics. Notice that NONE of these things has anything to do with enacting some kind of agenda; Obama represented nothing more than an opportunity for these people to entertain themselves with their own feelings of moral superiority. Sirota knows these people inside and out, and he'd better: they put the roof over his head, the food on his table, and pay for his vacations. Junk food manufacturers know what people like to stuff their faces with; guys like Sirota know what people like to stuff into their minds. And he gives it to them. Sirota is another of the many symptoms of the failings of modern leftism as it has become among the "netroots" as they used to like to call themselves. Just spew out some angry noise about how dumb and vile the other side is, assure your own side of its own moral and intellectual superiority, and carve out a nice career for yourself. Similarly, junk food manufacturers simply re-arrange fat and sugar in a variety of ways, and their fortune is made. Or increased. Never mind the diabetes.

Racism, or the charge of racism, is simply a way to turn white people into heretics. It's also quite elastic in its utility as a way to get people to back off from legit criticism. This has probably damaged Obama dreadfully as dissident from the left and center was suppressed under a vague threat of being called a racist.

To be fair quite a lot of whites will vote for the white candidate because he is white. But the white population splits 55/45 generally. They appear to vote ideologically. Conversely black voters are almost all 95/5 voting Dem. Jewish voters 75/25 who claim a sort of alterity from Gentiles and Hispanics exhibit similar vote patterns. If anything the white vote is surprisingly UNTRIBAL.

Obama gets very close to 50 of the white vote. The press do fawn over him. How is race a factor, except a positive benefit to him?

Romney can't even address the issues of underperforming AA kids, Blighted (largely black) urban cores, immigration from third world...without being howled down. These are the classic issues of the racist right. He can't even dogwhistle without a shellacking. The antiracism agenda has been largely successful. The left got what it wanted and the results are clearly visible in domestic policy. Negative equity, depressed labor market and a meltdown in education standards. Proceed Mr President!

The suspect aspect of Bob's post becomes evident in the reverse racist fetishists that follow up here. One wonders if the likes of TIL even remotely consider the racial aspect at play when a non entity like George W is allowed to become President and wreck half half the world? It's doubtful. It's probable that this was part of what gave us a black President years before it figured to happen; W was such an obscenely obvious beneficiary of white supremacy it was absurd to bitch about the grips TIL brings up here, and it basically still is. Which was basically Sirota's point in the first place. Bob, alas, sometimes displays the same tin ear on race that he did when he was ASTOUNDED some found Mel Gibson's movie might betray some antisemitism. He insists white racism must be as blatant as it was in the days of Dr. King to be called out, which means, of course, it never gets called out. Or, brushed aside quickly at best, as Bob did with the crude race baiting of Glenn Beck when Obama first took office. And those who follow Beck's lead like Jon Voight, Dennis Miller and David Mamet? They aren't on Bob's radar. Is it such a great paradox to absorb that while liberals stupidly call race on reflex, the real thing in the traditional white form is often still with us? Sometimes it's a judgement call: I would say Andrew Breitbart reediting a black speaker's tape to make it sound as if She said the opposite of what She said was racist, Bob says no. WAY OT: Did you ever hear Art Garfunkel's recording of Jimmy Webb's "Mr. Shuck and Jive" with back up scat by David Crosby? It's a wonderful record, but it's about as white as you can get.

The film industry is an out and out assault on conservatism. It promotes multiculturalism, depicts scores of "magical negroes" goes soft on poor put upon minorities and demonizes rich white men reflexively. It's also hostile to Christianity. Invariably showing Christians to be tremendously unpleasant or criminal.

Don't get started on the contemporary advertising world! It's a laughable fun house mirror (btw I'm not stumping for Romney. He's a pussy footer)

Who gives a crap about the Republican party ? You appear to think that I care.

The entertainment industry is populated by and in many instances controlled by Leftists. Transgressive, subversive, radical anti-conservative, antiracist, multicultural, pro immigration, anti nativist... It also tends to show rednecks in a very poor light whenever possible.

Journalism is a slightly trickier field. They tend to sniff out power and suck up to it.